ok people..the smoking Gun...your take on Gun control...

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by darthmomm, Oct 29, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    Sorry for the double post but there was some sort of error on the post when I tried to post it. So I re-wrote it because I didn't know if it would be posted or not.
  2. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    That "they were mentally disturbed and would have found another way" argument doesn't make sense to me. As i have said before, are we to believe there are just more mentally distubred people in America than most other countries? Look at it this way.
    Growing up can be hard. Especially if you don't fit in. Especially if you are being bullied every day of your life. Your teachers won't help you. Your parents won't help you. You see no way out. Your dad owns a gun. You think "Maybe i can take out as many people as i can before i take myself out". I know that there would be a heck of alot more deaths in Britain if people in the general public were aloud to own guns. Hell, when i was a child, i probably would have stole my dad's gun if he had one to make the bullying stop.
  3. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE:
    My issue with mandatory trigger locks is the fact that it is a one-size fits all mandate.

    It is not good in every situation. In fact, one family had the guns locked up in accordaqnce with California's law on the subject.

    A nutcase with a pitchfork broke in, killed two of the five children. The oldest was a rather good shot, having spent time at the range with her family, but the law was followed.

    Have a variety of options for people to look at. For some people, trigger locks are good idea. Particularly if all they have are guns for hunting. But for those who have self-defense firearms, that could cause problems. SERIOUS problems.

    As in, you try to get the lock off while a bad guy closes in on you with a knife. You can end up dead very quickly that way.

    What makes anyone think that one device or method of safe storage will work for EVERY case? That sort of attitude is best described as arrogant, if you want my opinion about it.

    ---

    Furthermore, your dismissal of the concerns of people who point out the incremental losses of rights that were suffered in England and Australia shows that you again miss valid concerns people may have.

    The slippery slope can be VERY real. you start by going after the real unpopular stuff, and then the extremists work their way against a little here, and a little there, and soon, as Martin Niemoller said, "there was no one left to speak up for me."

    The concerns have a level of validity. If I was sure it would stop at a reasonable point, I might be more willing to compromise, but the Brady Campaign's previous incarnations supported board restriction on guns, and even bans. Those statements and positions have NOT been repudiated to my knowledge.

    So, you can understand why I want the line drawn as far away from the edge as possible.
  4. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    Okay well I'm a gun owner. I have the trigger locks on both my guns. It takes me a time span of no less than 7 seconds to get it off and fire one round. You want to know why I can do this? It's because I took many training classes and PRACTICED. If your going to be a gun owner in my book you better be DAMN RESPONSIBLE AND A DAMN GOOD SHOT AND BE EFFICENT WITH IT.

    It's no good buying a gun if you don't know it backwards and forwards. I'm talking taking the weapon apart blindfolded and putting it back together.

    Plus like I've said before it's a What if in your and Moriarte's argument that we will eventually lose our right to bear arms.

    Basically your reasoning goes down to this. Well I'm not going to support a trigger lock or mandatory training classes which will save lives just because even though I can't prove it that the government will take my rights away. That to me is a very unresponsible way of thinking.

    "A nutcase with a pitchfork broke in, killed two of the five children. The oldest was a rather good shot, having spent time at the range with her family, but the law was followed."

    It's a terrible situation, but have you ever heard of the meaning RUN????? Get away from the nutcase??? He didn't have a gun, he had a pitchfork. That is what should have been done in that situation. Another thing is why would parents let 5 kids who I'm sure what the ages of them were alone in a house by themselves. That isn't very smart if you ask me.


    "What makes anyone think that one device or method of safe storage will work for EVERY case? That sort of attitude is best described as arrogant, if you want my opinion about it."

    Why is it arrogant? Lets see here. A kid finds his dads gun under the bed one day while playing with his buddy. He takes it out and points it as his friend and trys to pull the trigger yet it will not fire because the trigger lock is on it. Life saved. How about the angry kid who breaks into a locked gun case and finds his dads hunting rifles and handguns and decides to haul these down to the school yard and shoot everyone. When he gets there he trys to shoot them, yet the trigger locks on the weapon. Once again lives are saved.

    So there is no arrogant thinking in this at all, but it is arrogant to think that just because if a trigger lock becomes a law that we will lose rights. Please you couldn't get anymore lame.

    Another thing. I have mentioned this before, but I will say it again. You cannot compare the U.S. to other countries. We are one of a kind, and our government is different. While there is similarities between us and Great Britain we still are different. So your case of trying to compare apples and oranges doesn't fly either.


  5. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    You said it takes seven seconds to get a trigger lock off and the gun ready to fire.

    Do you know how long it takes an average person to cover 21 feet?

    Answer: 1.5 seconds.

    This is not B.S., this was a drill run by Dennis Tueller, a police officer in Utah. There is a tape available that shows you how to conduct that drill yourself.

    A URL with two links so you can purchase the tape in question, as well as a summary of Tueller's findings, is right here: http://www.recguns.com/HowClose.html

    I invite you to look it over.

    That's the average room distance, and with bare hands or a knife. That leaves 5.5 seconds for the other guy to be stabbing me.

    Congratulations. That "standard" of yours just got me or someone else killed.

    Or do you remember that pitchfork case in California? A mandatory gun locklaw COST two children their lives. Or are they just collateral damage? I'll quote you the "Rest of the story" about how the mandatory storage laws you want COST lives.

    ---
    The significant danger of gun-storage laws was brought home in an August incident in Merced, California, where a pitchfork-wielding man attacked Jessica Carpenter's 7-year-old brother and 9-year-old sister. It's neither a surprise nor a coincidence that the cause of this tragedy went unreported by the national press.

    Jessica's father had kept a gun in the home, and his children had learned how to fire it. Jessica, age 14, is a very good shot. But by California law, the gun had to be locked up when the parents weren't home. So, when the murderer attacked, Jessica wasn't able to retrieve the gun to save her siblings. She ran to a neighbor, and begged for help. By the time the police showed up, the 7-year-old boy and the 9-year-old girl had been stabbed to death with the pitchfork.

    In the aftermath, the children's great-uncle, Rev. John Hilton, declared that their father was "more afraid of the law than of somebody coming in for his family. He's scared to death of leaving the gun where kids could get it because he's afraid of the law. He's scared to teach his children to defend themselves."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel101800.shtml

    ---

    I agree, I ought to be responsible about the guns I own. But at the same time, I'm also responsible to make sure that the right to own those guns is preserved.

    Finally, as for your implications that I'm crying "wolf!" about losing my rights, that article goes into pretty good detail about HOW it the Brady Campaign and other groups will keep coming back for more and more. And how it started small and got bigger elsewhere.

    Would you mind telling me when the gun-control push has gone too far in your mind? When you will start fighting their efforts?
  6. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    Ah, as you have given your worst case scenarios to support yours, listen to yourself. I have explained incrementalization, I've explained measures that are used to prevent...pay attention to that word P-R-E-V-E-N-T it from happening. It is not immediate, but it happens in the long run. Incrementalization happened in England and Australia and soon Canada. YOU do not see an immediate result, because the results are not immediate, but cumulative over decades, and you do not understand this obvious notion. It does exist, and again it is to prevent it from happening, to prevent things from becoming worse, it is almost too slow to notice, however. The proof you seek takes time, and by then it would become too late.

    PPOR that it WILL cut deaths in half, you're just using an if-then arguement aren't you...hmm. Heh, those kids would have gotten some other weapon more than likely, or gotten the weapons illegally. A major problem AGAIN I don't see people are addressing is the major lack in adult responsibility. The government has no place in legislating morality, but people are becoming so lazy that they would want the government to institute rules to control behavior instead of dealing with it themselves.
    And then you say we aren't for protecting lives, when that is incredibly fallacious to say. I would love if we needn't have guns, but they are needed, because we do not live in a Utopia, but instead live with predators, rapists, murderers and all kinds of criminal malcontents.

    I guess you did not pay attention to what Benjamin Franklin said, and you are naive to assume the problems would be solved in such a fashion, for it would only harm ME and others like me, not the abusers/criminals you wish to punish and have answer to.

    Uh, and since you have proven to me you do not truly understand the NRA's position in the slightest, here is a reprint...

    ---------------------------------------

    Today, fatal firearm accidents are at an all-time low.

    While the number of privately owned firearms has quadrupled since 1930, the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has declined by 62%. Firearms are involved in 1.5% of accidental fatalities nationwide, far behind the deaths due to motor vehicle accident (47%), falling (15%), poisoning (10%), drowning (4%), fire (3%), suffocation on an ingested object (3%) and other causes. (National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics)

    Mandatory storage laws that exact penalties are unnecessary.

    Most states already provide penalties for reckless endangerment, under which an adult found grossly negligent in the storage of a firearm under certain circumstances can be prosecuted for a felony offense.

    Universal mandatory storage requirements are counterproductive.

    No "one size fits all" requirement can possibly meet the needs of all American gun owners, whose circumstances vary greatly. For example, gun owners without children in their homes may have different storage needs than those with children present. Gun owners who live in high-rise apartments may have different needs than those who live on isolated farms or ranches. NRA's firearm safety manuals recommend that firearms kept at home be stored inaccessible to unauthorized persons, including children. NRA believes that it is and should remain the responsibility of the individual firearm owner, not the government, to determine how to ensure that guns are safely stored.

    In an emergency, a trigger lock can handicap a person who needs a gun for protection.

    While firearms kept only for hunting, target shooting or as collector's items should be stored unloaded, firearms kept for personal protection may be better stored ready for use. Some trigger lock manufacturers recommend that their products not be used on loaded firearms.

    Trigger locks and other such devices can fail.

    Trigger locks do not make firearms foolproof and are not substitutes for safe firearms handling practices, dictated by long standing safety rules. Reliance on devices, rather than safety rules, can instill a false sense of secur
  7. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    "It is not immediate, but it happens in the long run. Incrementalization happened in England and Australia and soon Canada. YOU do not see an immediate result, because the results are not immediate, but cumulative over decades, and you do not understand this obvious notion. It does exist, and again it is to prevent it from happening, to prevent things from becoming worse, it is almost too slow to notice, however. The proof you seek takes time, and by then it would become too late."

    I'm talking about saving lifes, and your talking about something that might happen in a couple of decades. Please will you live in the now for God's sakes. I'm talking about now. Right NOW!!!!! Not 30 or 40 years from now. First off why the **** would I care what happens with the right to bear arms in 40 years when I will be a old man or dead?

    Once again your talking about other countries and I will dismiss it everytime because we are MAJORLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. Your comparing Apples and Oranges.


    "Rather than imposing ineffective laws, NRA believes education is the way to further reduce firearm-related accidents. Nationwide, NRA's 50,000 Certified Instructors and Coaches train three-quarters of a million trainees each year. Separately, NRA's award-winning "Eddie Eagle GunSafe®" education program for children in grades pre-K through 6th grade has reached nearly 10 million students nationwide."

    I agreewith the first statement. I say if your going to impose a law then my God ENFORCE IT. Second if the NRA believes in firearm education then WHY THE **** DON'T THEY WANT IT TO BE A REQUIREMENT BY LAW??????????????????????? Hell you can make a profit off it. Those 50,000 can grow to 100,000 easy with it becoming a requirement to own a gun and have a training class as well. Give me a good explanation WHY they are not for this? This is a prime example of the NRA being stupid and moronic. They can educate and make money off it like crazy.
    They do one thing yet say another.


    "I guess you did not pay attention to what Benjamin Franklin said, and you are naive to assume the problems would be solved in such a fashion, for it would only harm ME and others like me, not the abusers/criminals you wish to punish and have answer to."

    Where is it written that I have to agree with what Franklin says????? Oh and thank you for calling me Naive. Just because I can see through the BS that the NRA and the Brady campaigns dish out don't call me Naive. I don't support either one, and have never endorsed either one during this debate. So if anyone is being naive or gulible then the jokes on you pal.

    "The proof you seek takes time, and by then it would become too late."

    Funny you mention this, because your talking 30 or 40 years for your argument to come true. I say you would see results within one year of every single gun owner in America recieving there trigger locks and then one more year for studies and statistics to be evaluated. I'm talking a minimum of 2 to 3 years. Your talking decades so I think I would try 2 to 3 then a decade.


    "Would you mind telling me when the gun-control push has gone too far in your mind? When you will start fighting their efforts?"

    Okay I will answer your question. First off if our government came out tomorrow and said you have to turn in your gun. I would do it. I don't like guns even though I have two. I don't mess with it at all. However I know how to use it effectively if I need to. I would GLADLY give up my weapon.

    First off I know I'm a very observant person and can smell trouble. I don't go certain places or stay out during times when I know troublemakers lurk. I have COMMON SENSE something that too many people don't have. They think they can be out at 3am in a parking lot minding there own business and not worry about being robbed. BS, you asking for trouble. I have common sense and I'm not push over either. If I don't have my gun I'm sure as hell am either going to run from trouble which is most people should do 99% of the time, or I'm grabbing the nearest weapon if it's a
  8. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    "I'm talking about saving lifes, and your talking about something that might happen in a couple of decades. Please will you live in the now for God's sakes. I'm talking about now. Right NOW!!!!! Not 30 or 40 years from now. First off why the **** would I care what happens with the right to bear arms in 40 years when I will be a old man or dead?"

    It is that kind of attitude that is going to make life worse for those later in life. Instead of protecting what we have now for future generations, you would rather send them down the river without a prayer, you would rather be lazy and slothful and hand the noose over to those who are not even born yet, the fact that you do not give a damn about those who may inherate a future with fewer liberties and tighter behavior controls is incredibly dumb, assinine and dangerous.
    "He who sacrifices Liberty for Safety deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin

    So, it could never happen in the good 'ol U.S. of A??? WE could never become corrupt, evil, tyrannical??? Please, to assume our absolute supremacy is asking for trouble.

    "I agreewith the first statement. I say if your going to impose a law then my God ENFORCE IT. Second if the NRA believes in firearm education then WHY THE **** DON'T THEY WANT IT TO BE A REQUIREMENT BY LAW??????????????????????? Hell you can make a profit off it. Those 50,000 can grow to 100,000 easy with it becoming a requirement to own a gun and have a training class as well. Give me a good explanation WHY they are not for this? This is a prime example of the NRA being stupid and moronic. They can educate and make money off it like crazy.
    They do one thing yet say another."

    I already talked about this before, and with DPF, but you, like him, can't read too well. IF the government legislates this kind of control, it will lead to more control for "safety" reasons that cascades down to the point where it would be "safer" to not be able to own guns, when that is just not true.

    "Where is it written that I have to agree with what Franklin says????? Oh and thank you for calling me Naive. Just because I can see through the BS that the NRA and the Brady campaigns dish out don't call me Naive. I don't support either one, and have never endorsed either one during this debate. So if anyone is being naive or gulible then the jokes on you pal."


    Well you are welcome because you are, I brought out that quote because it is interesting to think about, but it does not invoke any thinking on your part so sorry if I wasted your time. OH..no...is someone suggesting that my thoughts aren't my own...again? I cannot believe you don't understand their line of thinking after that long post of mine, it says it all right there, and the things you are complaining about can be addressed if you use a little thinking on your part.

    "Funny you mention this, because your talking 30 or 40 years for your argument to come true. I say you would see results within one year of every single gun owner in America recieving there trigger locks and then one more year for studies and statistics to be evaluated. I'm talking a minimum of 2 to 3 years. Your talking decades so I think I would try 2 to 3 then a decade. "

    So...what are you saying...that what I said could never come to pass, that we have to wait for things to become worse and worse so that it is harder to stop such government control over our rights? You would not try and prevent this corruption now...you would rather wait and see?

    You obviously misunderstand me. I am saying that by following the line of thinking that IF we allow the government to legislate more and more safety control over our rights, that slowly that right will be eliminated or controlled to the point of uselessness and THAT would take decades, but that it is better to prevent that now. YOU are proclaiming that YOUR plan would take 2-3 years while mine would take 30-40...what plan was that? I never gave no such plan of action to counter yours. I am merely saying that to support YOUR line of thinking is to give in to the incremenalization process
  9. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    Also, it was a one off case. Are school shootings so one off? No, not nearly. Has anyone attempted to tackle my schoo shooting arguments? No, because you know im right. America isn't THAT different from the rest of the world, so explain the school shootings.
  10. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    "That 'they were mentally disturbed and would have found another way' argument doesn't make sense to me."

    "Hell, when i was a child, i probably would have stole my dad's gun if he had one to make the bullying stop."



    Dude, you just answered your own question awhile ago. The mere fact you admitted you would consider and act on it proves so. I would hope your father would have been responsible enough to teach you right from wrong however. Though the majority of people who are emotionally scarred and have access to firearms do not use them, again I believe the real problems are far from the use of weapons, but the user of said weapons.

    Ciou-See the Sig
  11. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    Th point is; there was no gun there. If the gun was there, then i would have heavily considered using it. But because there was no guns in my house, the thought never even occured to me. Most kids who get bullied in extreme ways desperately want to get back at their bullies as well as end their own suffering. Thats why i think there are so many school shootings in america, because the possibility of going into school with a gun is there. What makes people think they would have found another way?? I imagine most kids wouldn't know where to begin getting guns on the black market, and wouldn't be able to afford it if they could.
  12. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    I was bullied in school, my family owns firearms and I never considered using it to "end my suffering" and those lives of my bullies, which goes to show the many sides to an issue.
    There are too many facets to this issue to go into, as they were all, mostly, talked about when Columbine and the other incidences happened, but one issue that I have been championing is the notion of parental responsibility. I do not believe that the parents should be punished, just that there were SOOOOO many warning signs and they were just being ignored not just by the parents, but by teachers, principles, friends and other family etc. And it was this ignorance that allowed them access to weapons that people like them should not be having, but again their mentalities were ignored and allowed to flourish into murderous intent.

    If the will is there to aquire weapons, more than likely it will happen. After Columbine, a staggering amount of "copy cats" started doing the same thing to vent their frustrations, and I hope that parents are looking closer to their own kids, because to think that it can't happen, that your kids will never be harassed or emotionally hurt and to think that they won't act on it is absurd. There is a fine line between healthy parental discretion and out-right denial, between watching-dogging your child and paranoia. In many cases, these kids' problems were ignored by the very people who should have caught on to them.

    Ciou-See the Sig
  13. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    "I already talked about this before, and with DPF, but you, like him, can't read too well. IF the government legislates this kind of control, it will lead to more control for "safety" reasons that cascades down to the point where it would be "safer" to not be able to own guns, when that is just not true."

    PROOF TO ME THAT WILL HAPPEN AND I WILL AGREE WITH YOU!!!!! You are assuming this will happen. You have no evidence, and like I said before you can't compare us to other countries so if that is what your basing your argument on then you've lost. That is not a valid argument and is nothing more than a what if. Nothing bad will happen if we make is LAW that you must go through a training course and have a trigger lock, however not doing it leaves the ******** door open for more accidental shootings, because of people being stupid with guns.


    "It is that kind of attitude that is going to make life worse for those later in life. Instead of protecting what we have now for future generations, you would rather send them down the river without a prayer, you would rather be lazy and slothful and hand the noose over to those who are not even born yet, the fact that you do not give a damn about those who may inherate a future with fewer liberties and tighter behavior controls is incredibly dumb, assinine and dangerous.
    "He who sacrifices Liberty for Safety deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin"

    Look I'm not being lazy or slothful. I'm the one trying to change things not sit back and do nothing about the situation at hand. All I want is it to be MANDATORY that in order to get that cheerished gun of yours you must pass a mandatory training class and you must keep a trigger lock on the gun when it's not in use. WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT THAT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND??????????????? This is not taking your rights away, but it is keeping people who don't know how to use a gun properly from owning one. Why have a gun if you don't know how to use it?

    You know what your hopeless in understanding that there needs to be more responsible action taken if you want your stupid precious right to bear arms to stay. Your rights are not being taken away with a trigger lock or a training class and if you think they are then your nothing more than a NRA EXTREMIST IN MY BOOK!!!! Therefore no matter what I say about gun control will fly. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY MORONS OUT THERE WHO DON'T NEED TO EVEN BE AROUND A GUN. So if that Moron is able to pass the background check on a weapon and get that weapon, they still must get a trigger lock and pass a training course as the last step in obtaining that gun. All it is a checks and balance system.


    Have all the guns you want, but MY GOD KNOW HOW TO USE THEM IF YOU HAVE TO. It's no good buying a gun and not knowing where the safety is and when that moment of truth occurs where you and the bad guy are about to square off and you try to pull the damn trigger and nothing happens. NOW THAT IS BEING LAZY AND IRRESPONSIBLE AND YOU DESERVE TO GET KILLED THEN.


  14. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    KaineDamo:
    The first reason I've not bothered to respond is the fact that I do not see Why do what those kids did at Columbine or Jonesboro have anything to do with me or MY guns.

    As for the second reason, you'f get all bent out of shape if I mentioned what might work.

    Joel Myrick stopped the shooting at Pearl, Mississippi with his gun. The problem was, he had to run to his truck in the parking lot to get it.

    There was another school shooting stopped by an armed citizen - the owner of a place having a school dance. He retrieved his shotgun.

    A part-time cop (full-time self-defense trainer and writer) Massad Ayoob researched the school shootings and did an article in the July/August 1999 American Handgunner. It analyzed the SEVEN incidents prior to Columbine.

    To quote from the summary close to the beginning of the article:

    "ALL of the eight perpetrators surrendered when faced with forcible resistance.

    "In two of the seven instances, it was a PRIVATE CITIZEN armed with a gun who intervened and stopped the killing.

    "In at least two of the seven cases, the individual who overpowered the killer and stopped the carnage was a member of the National Rifle Association."

    (source: July/August 1999 issue of American Handgunner, page 42).

    Now, the last two overlap, but in three cases (Pearl, MS in 1997; Edinboro, PA in 1998; and Springfield, OR in 1998), a private citizen with a gun or an NRA member played a key role in stopping the carnage.

    When you look at Columbine and the other three school shootings since then, you had the killings of the innocent IMMEDIATELY stop in ten out of eleven cases. In the case of Columbine, the killers' plan was only partially thwarted, but a reasonable person can assume that countervailing force saved lives there.

    First of all, we have ELEVEN incidents that have garnered major media coverage sincd 1996. That's six years. Less than two per year. We are dealing with a maximum of 40 deaths in that time frame. This is in a nation of 230 million people.

    School shootings are tragic events that are about as likely to happen as a fatal lightning strike or a fatal bite from a poisonous snake or reptile. They do not warrant a wholesale restriction on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Particularly when careful study of the events themselves (as opposed to the major media spin) might suggest reasonable alternatives that would mitigate or prevent such shootings WITHOUT the Draconian measures you propose.
  15. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    Uh huh, you cry proof, when you offer none yourself? You do not want me to use other countries in my arguement because it helps me and hinders you, you do not make the rules. If I "have" to find precedent in America than I could bring up Prohibition-where elitists tried to control behavior which only lead to increased crime and actually made things worse. A quick fix solution that back-fired horribly...buuuuut then you would cry that it does not pertain to firearms. Well boo hoo, I never touted my opinion as factual, just extremely probable, once again you misunderstand, bravo.

    Yes well, all I am saying is that the government has no right telling me how to operate, maintain or handle my firearms, it is a matter of principle...buuuuuut then you will say that I am being irresponsible, but I have said before I am all for gun safety, just that the government has no place in legislating how I do things.
    I understand what you are saying, I do not agree with it, and I believe it wrong. What you propose hinders my rights at the expense of safety, and the quotation is again lost on you.

    Ah yes I am "hopeless" because I do not agree with you, if I was truly intelligent, then I would side with you in your great crusade...*gag*

    I would like you to PPOR that there are too many "morons" who own guns...I can safely say without the support of statistics that the majority of gun owners are responsible. I've said before that WE ALL have our rights until it is proven that we cannot safely use them, so we are going to have to deal with those who cannot or will not, act consientiously. Sure there are safety laws and guidelines that are needed...but sometimes they can go too far, too far in fact those laws would hurt our liberties than help them in a slow process called...you guess it, incrementalization.

    Feel good legislation is not the same as good legislation because it is ineffectual. Though you make it sound like it is plausable, it sounds highly dubious as they all do. The fact you try and make it sound that if NO ONE does what you propose that almost ALL gun owners would be irresponsible is very insulting. The majority is responsible, and practice safety regardless of government interference, YOU want the government to try and curb the few malcontents just so you can feel safer, when that will only hurt our liberties, and that is absolutely disgusting.

    Ciou-See the Sif


  16. Clonetrooper-X Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 16, 2002
    star 1
    make the age limit to about 30 so young people can use them for something awful....
  17. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    Well the only way I can prove to you is if it is implimented and see how things turn out in 2 years. That would be the only way. However don't you think it would be logical for everyone in order to own a gun they must master that weapon? Or a trigger lock will help in situations when a child gets there hands on a gun? Please tell me why we shouldn't at least try it. I'm personally sick of this "it's taking our liberties away." In what way is this taking your liberties away? It's a safety percausion nothing more. Why do you look at everything in the worst case scenario.

    Plus your argument is majorly flawed by comparing the U.S. to other countries. We are not like other countries in the following areas cultures, social and the way our government works. Trying to compare Nazi Germany, Russia, Great Britain,Australia,Somalia or whatever other country you want to compare us to. It's not in the cards.
  18. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    nobody is comparing you to Nazi Germany. We were comparing you to currently existing countries. And your violent crime rate is so amazingly high and only "topped" by rogue states. In fact it is 24 times as high as in Germany (per capita) and nearly 50 times as high as Japan.

    I fail to see why a comparison shouldn't be made. Such a crime rate would be for me a major reason to not move to the US
  19. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    You say that some of these school shootings were stopped by other members of society. I say these school shootings wouldn't have happened in the first place if guns weren't so easily accesable. The proof is already out there in countrys were guns are banned. Thats why comparing the US to other countries is necassery.
  20. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    KaineDamo:

    Sorry, but again, you've not addressed the other arguments made in my post.

    Your mind has apparently been made up, and it seems apparent that logical and dispassionate analysis of these RARE events from an expert of Massad Ayoob's caliber (20+ years as a part-time cop, one of the top expert witnesses in self-defense cases, a top competitive shooter, a sworn police prosecutor in New Hampshire, and a top self-defense trainer) means NOTHING to you. You might want to try to broaden your horizons and locate a copy of the analysis I outlined earlier.

    I thought liberals were open-minded. Well, it won't be the first or last time I've overestimated them...
  21. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    Fairly rare in america. Virtually non-existent almost everywhere else. This is not being close minded. Your right, my mind is made up. But only because all the evidence is so clear in my mind, its hard for me to understand why pro-gun people continue to defend their "right" to own guns when incidents with guns happen on a daily basis. It is madness that in some places you can buy guns from convenient stores, but feel it necassery to ban Marilyn Manson CDs. And please, don't label me with a political term. I can't stand that stupid politcal rivalry bullshit.
    We can't license when lightning strikes happen. Nor can we ban them from happening. If we could, i'm sure we would in places where it is a danger to the public. Just because school shootings are rare does not mean nothing should be done about it.
  22. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    KaineDamo:

    How are you so certain about this? Have you read any of Ayoob's analysis? Do you even care about the facts that the Brady Campaign has failed to mention, like the missed opportunities to stop those shooters BEFORE they did what they did? The guy who shot up the school in Springfield Oregon was caught with a stolen gun on school grounds the day before. There are at LEAST three FEDERAL laws covering that situation that were NOT enforced.

    I refuse to let myself be railroaded, which is what I believe gun control advocates are doing to me. It's no different than the frame-ups those dirty cops pulled off at the LAPD's Rampart Division in a moral sense.

    I have done nothing wrong. I'm innocent. I will NOT allow myself to be mistreated or punished for the actions of others, which your "solution" of getting rid of the guns does. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

    You mentioned banning CDs. I don't like the notion of banning the CDs, either. I'm consistent on this front. You can't blame ANY inamimate object for the actions of an individual. That includes CDs, cars, video games, and guns. Getting rid of them won't get rid of evil.

    I would also state very clearly that stuff was done to address these rare events. Most important was the fact that people take threats to do this sort of thing seriously, which allows them to be nipped in the bud BEFORE the shooting happens.

    This administration is also enfrocing laws on the books. Had that been done, the Springfield, Oregon shooting would not have happened, and the shooter would be serving some time for having the stolen gun. No school shooting happens. Isn't that good enough?

    Why is it that your way is the only way? Why are you so opposed to finding a way that both prevents school shootings and leaves law-abiding people ALONE?
  23. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    You misunderstood my statement about that CD. I'll explain...
    There are a few convenient stores, or shopping malls, in America where you can buy guns quite easily. But, some of these same stores have banned Marilyn Manson CDs, and other music. These guys need to get their priorities straight.
    See, you say you own guns and have committed no crimes. I'm sure you haven't, but at the same time how am i to know that one day something terrible would happen to make you just... snap?? And if you snapped, you have your guns there...
    Its too easy for people to get guns. One of the reasons for the high crime rate is the fact you can get them so easily. Just like no country can or should weild the destructive power of nuclear weapons, no ordinary human could or should weild the power guns have. I'm not explaining this very well. But whats stopping you or the guy next door with his weapons from using guns for wrong.
  24. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    KaineDamo:

    So because I MIGHT snap, I should have them taken away? Hello, what happened to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What happened to probable cause?

    All you have are fears of a boogeyman SOMEWHERE who MIGHT snap. The cops can't even start investigations based on what you are citing as a reason to take away my guns. Am I to get less consideration from the government than a criminal suspect?

    Forgive me, but that is a very warped thinking process. The Constitution was designed so that the government would NOT intrude on the lives and rights of law-abiding citizens unless there was a serious interest and there was NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

    As we can see through Project Exile and other efforts, there are alternatives to taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. They are not 100% effective, but they've worked well enough.

    All of the Bill of Rights have social costs. Quite a few folks have walked because of the high burden of proof placed on prosecutors (O.J. Simpson is perhaps the most prominent example). We've had drug dealers walk becuase the cops do not get the warrant right, or because they go way too far in a traffic stop.

    I know for a fact that the 1st Amendment has its serious costs too. We have to put up with the ranting and raving of David Duke and other folks who have crawled out from their rock at the bottom of some scum-filled pond.

    The key is to reduce the social costs WITHOUT reducing freedom. We've seen in other countries how people traded away freedom for a promise of safety that was neevr fulfilled.

    For example, if you want to talk about Japan, why not look at their justice system? Did you know that the cops do NOT have to stop questioning someone if they want a lawyer, much less provide one? That homes in Japan get visits twice a year from cops? Did you know that courts in Japan accept confessions brought about by torture?

    Be careful what you wish for, because you might find you don't like it too much. I'll keep our set of problems and system of government. The grass on the other side isn't that green. In fact, it's got some stuff I'd rather not see brought here.
  25. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    Logical maybe, but then you would need everyone to master cars, airplanes, cashiering, physical exercise, musicianship etc., the list just goes on and on. It would not matter be it gun or toy or profession, but the fact is, that is a right you are attempting to control, and that is not right. I would rather NOT try it, for people would become lazier and more susceptable to even more "control" for the idea of safety. I would rather prevent such thoughts now so as to curtail faulty thinking.

    Hmm, apples and oranges...weeeelll the Founding Fathers learned from other countries mistakes...how? Well they knew, not only from their former country, but also from France, Spain, and even ancient history that if power was given to one class, person or family then that would create a heavily corrupt government ruled by the few instead of the masses, create a strong class society ruled by the social elite over the tremendous masses, ruling over their subjects with an iron fist, controlling every aspect of their lives, why...because they have the power. They did not desire to repeat the horrors of other nations, and so created something relatively new.

    The Founding Fathers learned from precedent, from other COUNTRIES not to follow in their footsteps, their same mistakes. To think that "it might not happen here" is frought with danger. Similar democratic countries instituted similar measures and it served only to make things worse.
    You say "why not give it a try", well that is exactly what they will say when they pass more "safety" regulations. They will say "just give it time", "It'll work, you just have to wait". They can say that virtually with every single piece of legislation, all in the name of "safety".

    What if such legislation was put in, it would be hard to take out. Even if people protested it, people like you would say "They aren't taking away your rights, so quit complaining...it'll work you just have to wait". Stereotype has already been created, and you suffer from it. Infringing on my liberties is the same as taking them away, it is just done in smaller amounts. People would view me as extremist right wing, and a dangerous gun-toting nut...again because of stereotype, and my concerns would be disregarded because of these stereotypes. People would bash the NRA and make their concerns as extremist and crazy, because people do not think the mistakes done by other countries can happen in America. That is dangerous, disgusting thinking to blatantly assume that our country cannot suffer the mistakes of other nations, when we have in many instances.

    Ciou-See the Sig
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.